Love
#174341 ] 2007.06.15 23:04
Love is born from happening to have had a time to spend in only two and unfulfilled desire makes our love even more intense.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Alternate Personality
mercedo wrote today at 9:48 PM
>That said, I very much liked the ladies you posted in "Decadence"....Oh, really? Thanks a lot. I didn't know ++++ was you, ****, now I knew. Ok, of course I gladly accept your invitation.Thanks..
Religion & Science
Hello, XXX...
Two attachments were succesfully saved in my document and I finished reading them now. Then it's your turn....What is your question?
The way they argue is very similar to your reply.
When some one raised some question like ' I learned that human species appeared on the Earth 200,000 years ago.' You put a question on its accuracy, then next you showed examples that support your idea. I have to agree with you at least in this point. Don't you think this is not an argument?
I think both religion and science claim that both of them are true, and I fairly believe in the end the aim of both is the same -that is to seek for the truth.
Bible started being written 5000 years ago, still no science was found as now. We need to understand the Bible description in line with modern scientific result. Both religion and science are beneficial to humans.
Mer
Two attachments were succesfully saved in my document and I finished reading them now. Then it's your turn....What is your question?
The way they argue is very similar to your reply.
When some one raised some question like ' I learned that human species appeared on the Earth 200,000 years ago.' You put a question on its accuracy, then next you showed examples that support your idea. I have to agree with you at least in this point. Don't you think this is not an argument?
I think both religion and science claim that both of them are true, and I fairly believe in the end the aim of both is the same -that is to seek for the truth.
Bible started being written 5000 years ago, still no science was found as now. We need to understand the Bible description in line with modern scientific result. Both religion and science are beneficial to humans.
Mer
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Marriage
Marriage
2007.06.14 1:40
"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers
Really? If I were you, I would say, ' It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was certainly one's better half." -- Mercedo
2007.06.14 1:40
"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers
Really? If I were you, I would say, ' It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was certainly one's better half." -- Mercedo
After Adam
I completely agree with the chronology after Adam, I was trying to talk about before Adam. In comparison with the relatively long history that is about 200, 000 years ago of current human species, Adam was merely born 6000 years ago.
You didn't give your idea as to my chronology, but just you said common knowledge people usually took it for granted has sometimes mistakes and some scholar say human only appears on the Earth some 6 or 7 thousand years ago.
This is the basic difference between us.
539 BC is completely fine and 40XX BC is also generally acceptable, and I realised it is counterproductive for us to talk about the chronology before Adam. I admit Adam was the first human who started our civilisation, so from my point of view he is the first civilian, in other words human.
Anyway a bit explain to me as to Moses 30 day month, etc..
Mer
You didn't give your idea as to my chronology, but just you said common knowledge people usually took it for granted has sometimes mistakes and some scholar say human only appears on the Earth some 6 or 7 thousand years ago.
This is the basic difference between us.
539 BC is completely fine and 40XX BC is also generally acceptable, and I realised it is counterproductive for us to talk about the chronology before Adam. I admit Adam was the first human who started our civilisation, so from my point of view he is the first civilian, in other words human.
Anyway a bit explain to me as to Moses 30 day month, etc..
Mer
Human Chronology
Hi, XXX...
I attended the book study meeting as usual held in your condo on Tuesday. YYY and I talked about my Slashdot article - he read it at his office! that was about the concept of time. Regarding this we talked about Bible chronology.
Basically I believe current humans -homo sapience appeared 200,000 years ago. Probably Adam was born at least 7000 years ago. YYY didn't give his idea as to my chronology, but just he said common knowledge people usually took it for granted has sometimes mistakes and some scholar say human only appears on the Earth some 6 or 7 thousand years ago.
How do you think about human chronology? You endorse the result of current anthropological 'common knowledge' or you have your understanding based on Bible description?
Mer
PS, Dear Mr. Mer, is too formal, I prefer being called Mer instead. ;)
Send me some picture, please!
I attended the book study meeting as usual held in your condo on Tuesday. YYY and I talked about my Slashdot article - he read it at his office! that was about the concept of time. Regarding this we talked about Bible chronology.
Basically I believe current humans -homo sapience appeared 200,000 years ago. Probably Adam was born at least 7000 years ago. YYY didn't give his idea as to my chronology, but just he said common knowledge people usually took it for granted has sometimes mistakes and some scholar say human only appears on the Earth some 6 or 7 thousand years ago.
How do you think about human chronology? You endorse the result of current anthropological 'common knowledge' or you have your understanding based on Bible description?
Mer
PS, Dear Mr. Mer, is too formal, I prefer being called Mer instead. ;)
Send me some picture, please!
!
Re:Genetic, not economic(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.14 0:17 (#19491633) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
Taboo is not originally taboo, it came to be taboo as a result of practicing too many times and resulting in some inconvenience that cannot be evaded unless we stop doing or prohibitting as a form of taboo. I think incest falls on this category.
Current humans firstly appeared in some part of Africa 200,000 years ago and it was only 10,000 years ago that humans started building a civilised society, which means 190,000 years long humans had experienced a dark age. My assumption is humans must have had an incest-prone breedings during this period. As a result of this, humans had been unable to reproduce any more decent offsprings unless they had to seek for their mate outside their family. This is the background what I think why incest came to be taboo. So rare examples of incest in a limited lineage or enclosed area might have been correct to consider they are few examples of atavism. I observe those birth defects are both the result of incest and a cause of prohibition.
As to how humans conceive the notion of time and space, I think humans had been too long neither aware of sequence of time nor noticing they are occupying in a certain space. My assumption is their consciousness to time and space must have been much more ambiguous than now, that's what I proposed in my previous JE -Adam, etc.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.14 0:17 (#19491633) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
Taboo is not originally taboo, it came to be taboo as a result of practicing too many times and resulting in some inconvenience that cannot be evaded unless we stop doing or prohibitting as a form of taboo. I think incest falls on this category.
Current humans firstly appeared in some part of Africa 200,000 years ago and it was only 10,000 years ago that humans started building a civilised society, which means 190,000 years long humans had experienced a dark age. My assumption is humans must have had an incest-prone breedings during this period. As a result of this, humans had been unable to reproduce any more decent offsprings unless they had to seek for their mate outside their family. This is the background what I think why incest came to be taboo. So rare examples of incest in a limited lineage or enclosed area might have been correct to consider they are few examples of atavism. I observe those birth defects are both the result of incest and a cause of prohibition.
As to how humans conceive the notion of time and space, I think humans had been too long neither aware of sequence of time nor noticing they are occupying in a certain space. My assumption is their consciousness to time and space must have been much more ambiguous than now, that's what I proposed in my previous JE -Adam, etc.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Lot
Re:Genetic, not economic(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.13 3:25 (#19480695) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
As a matter of fact, incest was held as a way of insemination in the case of the lack of offsprings who inherit the fortune of their parents, see Bible example. I think it was Lot who was obliged to have affairs with his two daughters for insemination purpose only. Those acts were held out of the purpose, it has nothing to do with birth defects.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.13 3:25 (#19480695) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
As a matter of fact, incest was held as a way of insemination in the case of the lack of offsprings who inherit the fortune of their parents, see Bible example. I think it was Lot who was obliged to have affairs with his two daughters for insemination purpose only. Those acts were held out of the purpose, it has nothing to do with birth defects.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Adam's Findings
Re:Spacetime(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.13 3:10 (#19480475) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
My argument here is it was Adam who noticed for the first time human's mortality or when he was born and he ought to die in the end. Before him, no one noticed humans are to die. This is related to the rise of self-consiousness. Because no one was unable to reach the point of self-consiousness Adam was able to reach, humans used to repeat their daily lives without intension to expand their economy. So before Adam, humans stayed in a primitive barter based society for 190000 years. Current development of mankind is the direct result of Adam's findings of the concept of time and space. This concept is defined in subjective perception Adam acquired first time among humans.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.13 3:10 (#19480475) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
My argument here is it was Adam who noticed for the first time human's mortality or when he was born and he ought to die in the end. Before him, no one noticed humans are to die. This is related to the rise of self-consiousness. Because no one was unable to reach the point of self-consiousness Adam was able to reach, humans used to repeat their daily lives without intension to expand their economy. So before Adam, humans stayed in a primitive barter based society for 190000 years. Current development of mankind is the direct result of Adam's findings of the concept of time and space. This concept is defined in subjective perception Adam acquired first time among humans.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Suppose
Re:Genetic, not economic(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.13 2:50 (#19480243) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
Suppose those who got a gene defect got married to those who got the same problem in their genes, the kids they had are more likely to got a gene defect.
I believe that incest itself has no significant meaning here, it is simply a sexual act between family members. And family members of those who happened to have got a gene defect. Incest ought to be regarded as just a symptom of those people, not a cause of those birth defects.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.13 2:50 (#19480243) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
Suppose those who got a gene defect got married to those who got the same problem in their genes, the kids they had are more likely to got a gene defect.
I believe that incest itself has no significant meaning here, it is simply a sexual act between family members. And family members of those who happened to have got a gene defect. Incest ought to be regarded as just a symptom of those people, not a cause of those birth defects.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Incest
reply
iambmetammy wrote on Jun 11Interesting. Weird, but interesting. .
mercedo wrote on Jun 11
Incest was forbidden because it is the easiest way for mating. Probably before civilisation, many humans kept on practicing this for too many years. Incest became taboo mainly from economic reasons. Suppose if we got married to one of our parents, we can inherit their property. But remember we can automatically inherit their property because we are their child, so we don't have to get married to them in order only to inherit their property. If we got married to a person from other family, we can inherit property that belongs to other family. From the same reason even if we got married to one of siblings, we find no economical merit on this since our siblings merely inherit a part of our parents' property. That's why we are always encouraged to get married to a person from other family that owns more property than us anyway, and that explains why incest was not taboo amongst nobles in Hawaii. They needed to monopolise their wealth.
reply
markzero wrote on Jun 12
yay, eugenics, kill everyone with a birth defect!
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jun 12, edited on Jun 12
In the case of the Hawaiian nobility, it was such a small gene pool to begin with that it was more a matter of survival than anything else. Yeah, yeah, they could have liberalized their marriage laws and let them marry commoners, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a royal system anywhere that allowed that as a matter of course, for better or worse that's just not how it works, not in Hawaii, not anywhere.
mercedo wrote today at 2:15 AM
Today if the kids born as a result of violating incest taboo were born with some birth defects, it might be not because incest itself brought such birth defects, but because those who practice such heinous act must have had problems in their genes, so simply can we assert that those who had defects in genes are more likely to give birth to kids with some birth defects? Incest is not a cause, but a symptom. And that explains why incest is taboo for sure. Incest might be an atavism appears in a very rare frequency.
reply
lpetrazickis wrote on Jun 12
Of course incest was forbidden before civilization -- it's forbidden in your genes. Do gorillas practise incest? No. Do gorillas have civilization? No. QED.And the incest-avoidance algorithm is much simpler than you think. It's "Did you play as a kid with someone? Then it's yucky." In species where the child grows up with only one of the parents, the incidence of the child mating with the absent parent is relatively high.
mercedo wrote today at 1:45 AM
Incest was not a taboo before civilisation - this is a hypothesis specifically viewed from economic standpoint. I believe that we had had such a state in stages of human development, though, of course I have no way to confirm.
Aside from that argument, incest has been a taboo at least after civilisation. Simply because it is the act that brings about disorder to the smallest unit of the society. Two people meet and marry, have kids. In this smallest unit only one sexual relation is allowed. Family is the place where children learn how to socialise other than sexual love. Children need to seek for their mate other than the member of their family. That is how to adjust in society apart from their family.
What was a society like before the dawn of civilisation - more than 10000 years ago allows us a lot of assumptions. Assuming they had kept on steady population and lived in a limited area, cave or something, I still think incest was not a taboo those days.
reply
eglamkowski wrote today at 2:11 AM
Indeed, we see small, isolated populations even in historic times where incest was practiced out of necessity, or at least out of the interest of the family not seeing its family line die off. Even in colonial North America it was not uncommon in the 17th and 18th centuries to see family members marrying close relatives (not necessarily sisters or daughters, but nieces and cousins were not unheard of), simply because there weren't any other families around for hundreds of miles, it was marry back into your own family or the family line goes extinct.There's a reason why Jeff Foxworthy includes in his "You might be a redneck if..." the line "If your family tree does not fork..." It's funny only because it has a kernel of truth to it! It may be extremely rare here in the US today, but most people realize that even in the recent past, even in the US, it wasn't all that uncommon after all.Depending on where in space youi go, there were no doubt places where it was common at various times in history, and I tend to agree with mercedo - in prehistory it no doubt was also quite common, for the same reason it often was common in historical times, lack of anybody else in the vicinity to get married to.
Thought
mercedo wrote today at 2:15 AM
Today if the kids born as a result of violating incest taboo were born with some birth defects, it might be not because incest itself brought such birth defects, but because those who practice such heinous act must have had problems in their genes, so simply can we assert that those who had defects in genes are more likely to give birth to kids with some birth defects? Incest is not a cause, but a symptom. And that explains why incest is taboo for sure. Incest might be an atavism appears in a very rare frequency.
Thought
Today if the kids born as a result of violating incest taboo were born with some birth defects, it might be not because incest itself brought such birth defects, but because those who practice such heinous act must have had problems in their genes, so simply can we assert that those who had defects in genes are more likely to give birth to kids with some birth defects. Incest is not a cause, but a symptom. And that explains why incest is taboo for sure.
Incest was not a taboo before civilisation
mercedo wrote today at 1:45 AM
Incest was not a taboo before civilisation - this is a hypothesis specifically viewed from economic standpoint. I believe that we had had such a state in stages of human development, though, of course I have no way to confirm.
Aside from that argument, incest has been a taboo at least after civilisation. Simply because it is the act that brings about disorder to the smallest unit of the society. Two people meet and marry, have kids. In this smallest unit only one sexual relation is allowed. Family is the place where children learn how to socialise other than sexual love. Children need to seek for their mate other than the member of their family. That is how to adjust in society apart from their family.
What was a society like before the dawn of civilisation - more than 10000 years ago allows us a lot of assumptions. Assuming they had kept on steady population and lived in a limited area, cave or something, I still think incest was not a taboo those days.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Economic
Re:Genetic, not economic(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.12 3:28 (#19468159) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
I hardly believe so.
Before civilisation, limited number of humans inhibited in a limited place for a long time, where repetitious incest must have done. Judging from the expansion of human population and later development of human civilisation, I must say incest had nothing to do with genetics, but only that mattered economically. Economy kept on being in a closed circle that prevented them from acquiring wealth other than theirs.
I think the first civilisation started only after they abandoned the habit of incest.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.12 3:28 (#19468159) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.12 2:40)
I hardly believe so.
Before civilisation, limited number of humans inhibited in a limited place for a long time, where repetitious incest must have done. Judging from the expansion of human population and later development of human civilisation, I must say incest had nothing to do with genetics, but only that mattered economically. Economy kept on being in a closed circle that prevented them from acquiring wealth other than theirs.
I think the first civilisation started only after they abandoned the habit of incest.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Incest was not taboo
Incest was not taboo
2007.06.12 2:40
Incest was forbidden because it was the easiest way for mating. Probably before civilisation, many humans kept on practicing this for too many years. Incest became taboo mainly from economic reasons. Suppose if we got married to one of our parents, we can inherit their property. But remember we can automatically inherit their property because we are their child, so we don't have to get married to them in order only to inherit their property.
If we got married to a person from other family, we can inherit property that belongs to other family. From the same reason even if we got married to one of siblings, we find no economical merit on this since our siblings merely inherit a part of our parents' property. That's why we are always encouraged to get married to a person from other family that owns more property than us anyway.
2007.06.12 2:40
Incest was forbidden because it was the easiest way for mating. Probably before civilisation, many humans kept on practicing this for too many years. Incest became taboo mainly from economic reasons. Suppose if we got married to one of our parents, we can inherit their property. But remember we can automatically inherit their property because we are their child, so we don't have to get married to them in order only to inherit their property.
If we got married to a person from other family, we can inherit property that belongs to other family. From the same reason even if we got married to one of siblings, we find no economical merit on this since our siblings merely inherit a part of our parents' property. That's why we are always encouraged to get married to a person from other family that owns more property than us anyway.
The effect of legalisation
mercedo wrote today at 1:28 AM
lpetrazickis said 'reduction of ambition in the general population is not one of them.'
lpetrazickis said 'reduction of ambition in the general population is not one of them.'
Oh, you still have a good beard. Many years ago when I was minor, I took it for granted the prostitution is admitted in law because in my town there located infamous red light districts since before I was born. Only later when I was in junior high one of my classmates kindly told me that prostitution is illegal under the current law. Prostitution has been only held in limited districts because it is illegal. No one can openly run a Sex Shop like the cases in other country. I think that certainly oppress the expansion of those red light districts, and in my opinion, the illegality of prostitution has contributed to developing more productive industries. I certainly feel the legalisation of prostitution invite numerous sex industries and that will sluggish our entire economy and reduce the decent ambition of the general public. Some might call it just immoral, but what I must say is it's happier for the people.
Return to nature
Re:Even if it were legal(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.12 0:38 (#19466053) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
The development of civilisation hasn't contributed to promoting our happiness. Return to nature is now to be called.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.12 0:38 (#19466053) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
The development of civilisation hasn't contributed to promoting our happiness. Return to nature is now to be called.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Happy Marriage
mercedo wrote today at 12:08 AM
I think you reached the same conclusion as mine. Deduced from your happy marriage that I feel it envious.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Sparky4
Hello. I see you have added Multiply to your list of blogs. We were friended over at /. so I thought " why not at Multiply". sparky4
Thank you for your kind invitation. I gladly accept that.
Incest
mercedo wrote today at 11:40 PM
Incest was forbidden because it is the easiest way for mating. Probably before civilisation, many humans kept on practicing this for too many years. Incest became taboo mainly from economic reasons. Suppose if we got married to one of our parents, we can inherit their property. But remember we can automatically inherit their property because we are their child, so we don't have to get married to them in order only to inherit their property. If we got married to a person from other family, we can inherit property that belongs to other family. From the same reason even if we got married to one of siblings, we find no economical merit on this since our siblings merely inherit a part of our parents' property. That's why we are always encouraged to get married to a person from other family that owns more property than us anyway, and that explains why incest was not taboo amongst nobles in Hawaii. They needed to monopolise their wealth.
??
Re:So...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.11 2:49 (#19459075) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
It's hard to say so explicitly though in my eyes, both prostitution and marriage are based on the same principle that is both beneficial to others. I think prostitution exists outside of our ordinary economic system. Prostitution itself ought not to be considered bad, but we observe that the excessive amount of prostitution is not just productive from social viewpoint.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.11 2:49 (#19459075) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
It's hard to say so explicitly though in my eyes, both prostitution and marriage are based on the same principle that is both beneficial to others. I think prostitution exists outside of our ordinary economic system. Prostitution itself ought not to be considered bad, but we observe that the excessive amount of prostitution is not just productive from social viewpoint.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
?
Re:Even if it were legal(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.11 2:21 (#19458921) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
If prostitution were legalised, human economy would be less active than now. Obviously thanks to the surge of supply side, the price will fall significantly. People don't intend to work as hard as now. I think prostitution forms a fundamental of our society. This rule is based on 'give and give' relations, so no one will be hurt if that works.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.11 2:21 (#19458921) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
If prostitution were legalised, human economy would be less active than now. Obviously thanks to the surge of supply side, the price will fall significantly. People don't intend to work as hard as now. I think prostitution forms a fundamental of our society. This rule is based on 'give and give' relations, so no one will be hurt if that works.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Prostitution
mercedo wrote today at 1:32 AM
There are some laws that intended to regulate the quantity of something that itself is not bad. Prostitution is needed to control, but this is not something that ought to be totally banned.
Prostitution
mercedo wrote today at 1:22 AM
Granted prostitution is illegal and against the rule of human society, this is widespread and widely held varied its shape in many arenas of our daily life. Usually men pay the cost of date, conventionally men support his family economy, etc. Sometimes I think that the legalisation of prostitution will make humans happier than now. Human society will grow slower than now. In a sense marriage can be called the ultimate form of prostitution, though it's not a prostitution. Less productive in society but very fruitful in family life...I think this ought to be the goal of our society.
Prostitution
mercedo wrote today at 12:22 AM
First of all, here I don't limit the cases in a particular gender. There are many prostitutes in both genders.
Do you really think that a significant number of people will work as prostitutes?
Yes, I think so.I have heard that prostitution is the oldest occupation. Once it were legalised, many people would start moving to this first industry humans used to be engaged in.
I think that this was not very convenient for the first rulers of the society in early civilisation around 5000 BC that the society would stay in such a barter based level for the accumulation of wealth that the rulers considered it is essential to build the civilised society.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Prostitution
Prostitution
2007.06.09 22:29
I thought about why prostitution is prohibited legally here. Because it is the easiest way to get money, everyone would be trying to do this job if it is permitted by law. That must be destroying the country's economy. Because so many people will be engaged in this job, few can work in more productive field.
2007.06.09 22:29
I thought about why prostitution is prohibited legally here. Because it is the easiest way to get money, everyone would be trying to do this job if it is permitted by law. That must be destroying the country's economy. Because so many people will be engaged in this job, few can work in more productive field.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Terrific
Hi, ,
I'm Ok, you said you expect long letters, but I had nothing to say in long letters. That's the reason I hadn't sent.
I haven't had a perpetual relationship with anyone yet, I always feel frustrated these days everyday.
Do you plan to visit my house? If now, I am not working at night.... Last time you visited Australia, you could have come, I feel so reget that you didn't.
I enjoyed the photos you sent me.
Terrific!
..
I'm Ok, you said you expect long letters, but I had nothing to say in long letters. That's the reason I hadn't sent.
I haven't had a perpetual relationship with anyone yet, I always feel frustrated these days everyday.
Do you plan to visit my house? If now, I am not working at night.... Last time you visited Australia, you could have come, I feel so reget that you didn't.
I enjoyed the photos you sent me.
Terrific!
..
Time, etc
Time & Space
2007.06.08 23:06
From human criteria, space is so wide and limitless, gigantic in comparison to humans. From similar reasons, microcosm is so small, both macro and microcosm are beyond our comprehension. Strangely the natural rules that are adaptive to human world, macrocosm, microcosm are all different.
You can only assume what the world is like from only human point of view. It is simply impossible to know simple fact, how the world actually is in the first place.
Though I highly value your endeavour, I'm afraid you can only approach, but you can't reach. It's only worthy for us to know it as long as it relates to human interest. How about time? Do you think there's absolute time? Time has only meanings when it regulates the relative relations to each other. Time is a notion we start noticing after we are born. Space is also the similar notion. There's no absolute time and space other than trying to measure in the eyes of humans.
I'm afraid your attitude is not even in common among natural scientists. Einstein won't think as you do. For example, how could you think that the same laws of physics apply at all scales? Newtonian mechanics only applies at our ordinary life, quantum theory and theory of relativism are needed in both microcosm and macrocosm to explain respectively. Natural science we seek for only solves questions in human sphere from micro to macro pivoted at our ordinary life. We might be able to pick a couple of shining sands at beach, yet haven't noticed the sea of truth lying before us.
Since I said that humans are the only being that can be aware of time in the first place, I say time has only meaning as long as it relates to humans. I mean for monkeys and birds or other living species, as long as they can't detect the sequence of time, time has no meaning, in other words, time doesn't exist. How can you detect time? It is impossible to detect time when we sleep. Unless we are aware, as it were time stops.
Do you still believe in time, are you going to say time can be measurable by watch? Are you going to say a watch or clock keeps on measuring time after all humans die away? No.
2007.06.08 23:06
From human criteria, space is so wide and limitless, gigantic in comparison to humans. From similar reasons, microcosm is so small, both macro and microcosm are beyond our comprehension. Strangely the natural rules that are adaptive to human world, macrocosm, microcosm are all different.
You can only assume what the world is like from only human point of view. It is simply impossible to know simple fact, how the world actually is in the first place.
Though I highly value your endeavour, I'm afraid you can only approach, but you can't reach. It's only worthy for us to know it as long as it relates to human interest. How about time? Do you think there's absolute time? Time has only meanings when it regulates the relative relations to each other. Time is a notion we start noticing after we are born. Space is also the similar notion. There's no absolute time and space other than trying to measure in the eyes of humans.
I'm afraid your attitude is not even in common among natural scientists. Einstein won't think as you do. For example, how could you think that the same laws of physics apply at all scales? Newtonian mechanics only applies at our ordinary life, quantum theory and theory of relativism are needed in both microcosm and macrocosm to explain respectively. Natural science we seek for only solves questions in human sphere from micro to macro pivoted at our ordinary life. We might be able to pick a couple of shining sands at beach, yet haven't noticed the sea of truth lying before us.
Since I said that humans are the only being that can be aware of time in the first place, I say time has only meaning as long as it relates to humans. I mean for monkeys and birds or other living species, as long as they can't detect the sequence of time, time has no meaning, in other words, time doesn't exist. How can you detect time? It is impossible to detect time when we sleep. Unless we are aware, as it were time stops.
Do you still believe in time, are you going to say time can be measurable by watch? Are you going to say a watch or clock keeps on measuring time after all humans die away? No.
Adam
2007.06.08 22:59
The perception of time has been particular to humans since Adam found all humans are dead. Unfortunately despite your insist, time doesn't exist outside our perception.
My idea is completely in line with the plausible scientific facts from anthropological point of view. 4.57 billion years ago the Earth formed. Life on the Earth started existing 3.7 billion years ago. Current human species originated 200,000 years ago in Africa, then Adam was born at least more than 7000 years ago. In comparison with relatively long history of current human being, Adam ought to be regarded as the first modern human.
He was the first human who noticed 'humans are dead', 'human didn't wear anything'. Before the birth of Adam, no one noticed humans are mortal, and it was just natural for them not to wear anything. Humans before Adam never realised who they are. They weren't even ashamed of their nakedness.
Adam was the first person to try having food other than they already knew. It was adventurous at that time. Adam was also the first person who started getting out of their living sphere, that is Garden of Eden. First expenditure to seek for a better life started here. Adam was indeed one of the most remarkable figures in human history in many senses, who ought to be completely distinguished from humans before him.
We start counting years from the start of the first civilisation that occurred in East of Eden, somewhere in Mesopotamia. Then argument in Time and Space. Adam was the first human who noticed there might be Time. Time didn't exist before Adam noticed there might be. After he noticed them, he noticed there's only limited time he can live. From the similar reasons, space didn't exist until he noticed he only lives in a limited space.
Why do you believe in Time or Space? Time & Space are an illusion that the first humans started to have. They cannot be arguable from scientific viewpoint.
Time
Just because something is huge doesn't mean that we cannot comprehend it; for example, it appears that the same laws of physics apply at all scales. Besides, even by going this far, I am letting you promote human experience over nature.
We exist in nature, so nature comes prior to our experience. Without any one of us, or indeed all of us, nature would continue; without nature, we would not exist.
What does it matter what I know? The world is there regardless. I want to know what I can know about it, but that won't be everything. If I am lucky, I will know the fundamental laws in my lifetime, although I cannot hope to know all of the facts.-Morosoph
We exist in nature, so nature comes prior to our experience. Without any one of us, or indeed all of us, nature would continue; without nature, we would not exist.
What does it matter what I know? The world is there regardless. I want to know what I can know about it, but that won't be everything. If I am lucky, I will know the fundamental laws in my lifetime, although I cannot hope to know all of the facts.-Morosoph
I'm afraid your attitude is not even in common among natural scientists. Einstein won't think as you do. For example, how could you think that the same laws of physics apply at all scales? Newtonian mechanics only applies at our ordinary life, quantum theory and theory of relativism are needed in both microcosm and macrocosm to explain respectively. Natural science we seek for only solves questions in human sphere from micro to macro pivoted at our ordinary life. We might be able to pick a couple of shining sands at beach, yet haven't noticed the sea of truth lying before us.
Time has meaning whether we are conscious of it or not. To say otherwise is to conflate emotional purpose with physical existence and well-definedness. Emotional purpose and physical definition are both given the word "meaning", but they are very different things.
We become aware of time at birth, but our consciousness of time is just that: our perception of something that already exists. Few of us would believe that time began at the beginning of our own existence, a perspective that would be thought of as extremely arrogant. Yet substitution of general human experience seems to be okay. Quite apart from the unwarranted substitution of one person's experience with another, this appears to me to be arrogance on the part of humanity. We are not the only thing that exists.
I understand your entire argument here, but since I said that humans are the only being that can be aware of time in the first place, I say time has only meaning as long as it relates to humans. I mean for monkeys and birds or other living species, as long as they can't detect the sequence of time, time has no meaning, in other words, time doesn't exist. How can you detect time? It is impossible to detect time when we sleep. Unless we are aware, as it were time stops.
Do you still believe in time, are you going to say time can be measurable by watch? Are you going to say a watch or clock keeps on measuring time after all humans die away? No.
Adam
I should have explained my idea more ; )
My idea is completely in line with the plausible scientific facts from anthropological point of view. 4.57 billion years ago the Earth formed. Life on the Earth started existing 3.7 billion years ago. Current human species originated 200,000 years ago in Africa, then Adam was born at least more than 7000 years ago. In comparison with relatively long history of current human being, Adam ought to be regarded as the first modern human.
He was the first human who noticed 'humans are dead', 'human didn't wear anything'. Before the birth of Adam, no one noticed humans are mortal, and it was just natural for them not to wear anything. Humans before Adam never realised who they are. They weren't even ashamed of their nakedness.
Adam was the first person to try having food other than they already knew. It was adventurous at that time. Adam was also the first person who started getting out of their living sphere, that is Garden of Eden. First expenditure to seek for a better life started here. Adam was indeed one of the most remarkable figures in human history in many senses, who ought to be completely distinguished from humans before him.
We start counting years from the start of the first civilisation that occurred in East of Eden, somewhere in Mesopotamia. Then argument in Time and Space. Adam was the first human who noticed there might be Time. Time didn't exist before Adam noticed there might be. After he noticed them, he noticed there's only limited time he can live. From the similar reasons, space didn't exist until he noticed he only lives in a limited space.
Why do you believe in Time or Space? Time & Space are an illusion that the first humans started to have. They cannot be arguable from scientific viewpoint.
Impossibility of Time
mercedo wrote today at 9:39 AM
The perception of time has been particular to humans since Adam found all humans are dead. Unfortunately despite your insist, time doesn't exist outside our perception.
That is my standpoint.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Time & Space
editdeletereply
mercedo wrote today at 12:29 AM
mercedo wrote today at 12:29 AM
From human criteria, space is so wide and limitless, gigantic in comparison to humans. From similar reasons, microcosm is so small, both macro and microcosm are beyond our comprehension. Strangely the natural rules that are adaptive to human world, macrocosm, microcosm are all different.
You can only assume what the world is like from only human point of view. It is simply impossible to know simple fact, how the world actually is in the first place.
Though I highly value your endeavour, I'm afraid you can only approach, but you can't reach. It's only worthy for us to know it as long as it relates to human interest.
How about time? Do you think there's absolute time? Time has only meanings when it regulates the relative relations to each other. Time is a notion we start noticing after we are born. Space is also the similar notion. There's no absolute time and space other than trying to measure in the eyes of humans.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Wanted
Single Belarus Women
10000 Belarus women seeking a date Sweet – Smart – Beautiful
www.Anastasia-International.com
Meet black women
Free Interracial dating online. Pics, personal ads & more.
InterRacialMatcher.com
Christian Singles Dating
Marriage minded Christian Singles Dating for committed relationships
www.ChristianSingles.com
10000 Belarus women seeking a date Sweet – Smart – Beautiful
www.Anastasia-International.com
Meet black women
Free Interracial dating online. Pics, personal ads & more.
InterRacialMatcher.com
Christian Singles Dating
Marriage minded Christian Singles Dating for committed relationships
www.ChristianSingles.com
Harbour
mercedo wrote today at 1:29 AM
Throughout my twenties and thirties I travelled a lot. I visited all the cities above at least one time and if I had to choose among them I would choose Los Angeles. I liked Santa Monica best. But my most favourite city is not in the list, it is San Fransisco.
In general I like the harbour city. In Europe I would choose Venice first and foremost. Rotterdam was also nice. In England that was New Castle that attracted me most.
In Japan? I liked to visite Kobe many times, but this city was completely destroyed after the big earthquake. Yokohama is also another big harbour city. I never forget the big sunset I saw in Manila Bay with my love those days...
I like harbour. Because harbour is the place we can send our passion that doesn't reach.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Professionalism
Professionalism
2007.06.05 2:50
I started writing poems at age 10. I wrote about 200 poems during junior high school days. I devoted myself to writing poems from 16 to 19. I lost everything in my life what usually minors can acquire but I got what usually minors can hardly acquire, that is fame and recognition.
It took nearly twenty years to be able to write something workable in English. I never compromise, never, never. I am proud to be a writer. I never lose to anyone when it comes to writing. Never, never.
I usually write 5 hours in a day at least, always at night from 10 to 4.
2007.06.05 2:50
I started writing poems at age 10. I wrote about 200 poems during junior high school days. I devoted myself to writing poems from 16 to 19. I lost everything in my life what usually minors can acquire but I got what usually minors can hardly acquire, that is fame and recognition.
It took nearly twenty years to be able to write something workable in English. I never compromise, never, never. I am proud to be a writer. I never lose to anyone when it comes to writing. Never, never.
I usually write 5 hours in a day at least, always at night from 10 to 4.
Again
mercedo wrote today at 1:49 AM
morosoph said
'but space is an extension of matter, and matter is energy, '
I disagree. Space and time can be only meaningful when we perceive.
mercedo wrote today at 1:43 AM
How do you think about structuralism?
morosoph said
'but space is an extension of matter, and matter is energy, '
I disagree. Space and time can be only meaningful when we perceive.
mercedo wrote today at 1:43 AM
How do you think about structuralism?
Silver Cremated Bone of Buddha
Silver Cremated Bone of Buddha
2007.06.05 0:30
Here in Japan we call white rice as above in Japanese Ginshari. White rice has been respected from ancient times even though it became the cause of beriberi for the lack of thiamine.
2007.06.05 0:30
Here in Japan we call white rice as above in Japanese Ginshari. White rice has been respected from ancient times even though it became the cause of beriberi for the lack of thiamine.
Monday, June 04, 2007
MySpace
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
deletereplymorosoph wrote on Jun 3
We're here! Hello!
Obviously this link is for your own sake; I have a couple of links for morosoph (me!) only...
editdeletereplymercedo wrote on Jun 3
We're here! Hello!
Obviously this link is for your own sake; I have a couple of links for morosoph (me!) only...
Thanks for pointing out.
deletereplymorosoph wrote on Jun 3
We're here! Hello!
Obviously this link is for your own sake; I have a couple of links for morosoph (me!) only...
editdeletereplymercedo wrote on Jun 3
We're here! Hello!
Obviously this link is for your own sake; I have a couple of links for morosoph (me!) only...
Thanks for pointing out.
?
Yahoo!
Posted on Jun 4, '07 1:12 AM for you
yahoo.com 0 replies
Google
Posted on Jun 3, '07 11:18 PM for you
google.com 0 replies
http://www.blogger.com/start
Posted on Jun 3, '07 11:14 PM for you
blogger.com 0 replies
mercedo - MySpace User
Posted on Jun 3, '07 6:18 AM for you
myspace.com 2 replies
mercedo - Slashdot User
Posted on Jun 3, '07 6:06 AM for everyone
slashdot.org 0 replies
Treacqle - Slashdot Comments
Posted on May 26, '07 4:34 AM for everyone
mercedo-comments.blogspot.com 0 replies
Treacqle - Slashdot Journals
Posted on May 26, '07 4:29 AM for everyone
"Enjoy."
mercedo-complete.blogspot.com 0 replies
Posted on Jun 4, '07 1:12 AM for you
yahoo.com 0 replies
Posted on Jun 3, '07 11:18 PM for you
google.com 0 replies
http://www.blogger.com/start
Posted on Jun 3, '07 11:14 PM for you
blogger.com 0 replies
mercedo - MySpace User
Posted on Jun 3, '07 6:18 AM for you
myspace.com 2 replies
mercedo - Slashdot User
Posted on Jun 3, '07 6:06 AM for everyone
slashdot.org 0 replies
Treacqle - Slashdot Comments
Posted on May 26, '07 4:34 AM for everyone
mercedo-comments.blogspot.com 0 replies
Treacqle - Slashdot Journals
Posted on May 26, '07 4:29 AM for everyone
"Enjoy."
mercedo-complete.blogspot.com 0 replies
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Blogs
Blogs
Blog Name
Team Members
Treacqle - Circular Refuge Journals
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives I
Treacqle - Personal Letters
Treacqle - Technocrat.net Journals
Treacqle - Images
Treacqle - Lists Of Communities
Treacqle - Slashdot Comments
Treacqle - Slashdot Journals
Treacqle - Slado Archives
Treacqle - MySpace Archives
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives III
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives II
Blog Name
Team Members
Treacqle - Circular Refuge Journals
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives I
Treacqle - Personal Letters
Treacqle - Technocrat.net Journals
Treacqle - Images
Treacqle - Lists Of Communities
Treacqle - Slashdot Comments
Treacqle - Slashdot Journals
Treacqle - Slado Archives
Treacqle - MySpace Archives
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives III
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives II
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Brown Rice
Re:No, the problem is POLISHED rice.(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.02 3:42 (#19355413) (http://www2.blogger.com/profile/00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.02 2:16)
I don't know where you live, but here in Japan more than 99% people eat white rice. Brown rice is only eaten by old people or people who are sick for health reason.
I'm allergic to wheat. -Drinkypoo
That's too bad, some people show allergy in wheat, egg, peanuts, milk, broad bean. If you can't have bread, for health reason I recommend brown rice, though we never had it doesn't matter.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.02 3:42 (#19355413) (http://www2.blogger.com/profile/00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.02 2:16)
I don't know where you live, but here in Japan more than 99% people eat white rice. Brown rice is only eaten by old people or people who are sick for health reason.
I'm allergic to wheat. -Drinkypoo
That's too bad, some people show allergy in wheat, egg, peanuts, milk, broad bean. If you can't have bread, for health reason I recommend brown rice, though we never had it doesn't matter.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)